All the material on this blog has relocated to yourtaxmatterspartner.com

Friday, March 6, 2015

Dave Daubenmire Tells Some Truth About Kent Hovind Case - Whole Truth Not So Much

Coach Dave Daubenmire has given one of the best presentations of the Hovinidcation perspective that I have seen to date.

It works its magic by leaving many, many things out. Among other things it leaves out that Kent's original conviction was not just for structuring or that Kent Hovind has relied on tax protester arguments and not filed individually for decades. Like most tax protesters he was not criminally charged with tax evasion. Not being charged with tax evasion does not constitute being conventionally tax compliant. Hovind has a civil liability of over $3,000,000 that I don't think they have even tried to start collecting. I discuss some of this in Has Kent Hovind Broken Any Laws.

The Coach actually alludes to the connection between Hovind's tax resisting as structuring if you really pay attention.

Finally the lis pendens was not an appeal. It was a filing at the county court house that had the effect in Hovind's words of being dog crap that it would be hard for the government to scrape off its shoe. Hovind's appeal of his criminal conviction which led to the forfeiture had already been turned down.

3 comments:

I posted the following over there, and have not gotten a response. However, Dee Holmes has also posted some comments over there and she's gotten some responses indicating the Hovindicators really don't like her much.

(Begin my post.)

Coach, I think you got it wrong!

Want to talk about it?

Robert Baty’s Structuring Proposal for DiscussionWithdrawing less than $10,000 in a single transactionwith the intent to evade bank reporting requirementsis a violation of the law and regulations and was atthe time of the Hovind withdrawals in question andwas the legal standard used to convict Kent Hovindof “structuring”.

A common contribution is essential for the maintenance of the public forces and for the cost of administration. This should be equitably distributed among all the citizens in proportion to their means.

Declaration of the Rights of Man

Over and over again courts have said that there is nothing sinister in so arranging one's affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible. Everybody does so, rich or poor; and all do right, for nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands: taxes are enforced exactions, not voluntary contributions. To demand more in the name of morals is mere cant.